study on b2b marketing

8/13/2019 Study on B2B Marketing

1/34

1

Bangor Business SchoolWorking Paper

BBSWP/10/017UNDERSTANDING CUSTOMERS AND RELATIONSHIPS IN

SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY SMEsBy

Sara Parry and Rosalind JonesDivision of Business Studies, Bangor Business School

Jennifer RowleyDepartment of Information and Communications, ManchesterMetropolitan UniversityBeata Kupiec-TeahanScottish Agricultural College, Land Economyand Environment Research

August, 2010Bangor Business SchoolHen GolegCollege RoadBangorGwynedd LL57 2DGUnited KingdomTel: +44 0) 1248 38227E-mail: [email protected]


2/34

2

AbstractPurpose:Drawing on B2B Relationship Marketing and management theory, this researchseeks to better understand customer-perceived value in B2B contexts, specifically what

customers expect from their relationships with suppliers. The study therefore aims to

explore the customersperspective of the key attributes of relationships, in the software

sector, and with specific reference to SMEs in this sector.

Design/Method/Approach:A two level analysis of customer perspectives on relationshipattributes was conducted. First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the

customers of two case study firms. This process was used both to identify key attributes,

and to generate insights into the nature and importance of those attributes. Using these

attributes, a second study was conducted; a survey based on an online questionnaire

generated data that was analysed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis in order to identify

the relative significance of the attributes.

Findings: A new Customer Relationship Attributes Model (CRAM) is presented whichencapsulates the major attributes customers consider when entering into a relationship

with their software supplier. The CRAM identifies five product-related attributes (price,

functionality, bilingual capability, location, and software quality), and seven service

related attributes (communication, understanding of the customer, trust, relationship,

service, professionalism, and employee expertise). The most important of these attributes

are: software quality, professionalism, understanding of the customer, and functionality.

Originality/value:Too much of the research and rhetoric on relationship marketing andmanagement takes a provider side approach. This paper contributes to theory by offering

a customer perspective on business relationships in a specific sector. Further, the CRAM

can be used by software SMEs to inform the actions that they need to take in order to

enhance their relationships with their customers in pursuit of improved business

performance.

Keywords: Software technology SMEs, B2B relationships, Customer-perceived valueAdaptive Conjoint Analysis.


3/34

3

Understanding customers and relationships in software technology SMEs

1. Introduction

It is widely accepted that Relationship Marketing and relationship management is

important to business success (Gronroos, 1994; Gummesson, 2002; Reichheld and Sasser,

1990). Along with the recognition of the importance of relationships, the concept of

customer value has received much attention within academic literature, (Eggert et al.,

2006; Ulaga, 2001; Walter et al., 2001), particularly in relation to the notions of

relationships and relationship quality (Lindgreen et al., 2006; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006).

However, thus far, perceived value has mainly been considered from the provider side.

This study therefore aims to focus directly upon the customer and their expectations of

relationships in a specific sector. This investigation can therefore make a useful

contribution to the theory of B2B relationship marketing in the SME context, in software

technology firms, and from the customers point of view. This study also responds to

recent calls for the increased use of more qualitative approaches to study relationship

quality within service settings (Athanasopoulou, 2009) and for additional research into

RM in specific industries (Das, 2009).

The importance of networking and developing close relationships have already been

identified in the SME literature (Carson et al., 1995; Gilmore et al., 2001) and there is

increasing interest as to how SMEs market technology products in highly competitive

environments (Borg, 2009; ODwyer et al., 2009). Yet, there is a paucity of research on

marketing approaches used by software SMEs (Jones and Rowley, 2009) and the

marketing of software technologies in general (Alajoutsijarvi et al., 2000; Helander and

Ulkinemi, 2006; Ojasalo et al., 2008). One recent exception is the work of Westerlund and

Svahn (2008) which examined relationship perspectives in software SMEs and acts as an

important predecessor to this study.


4/34

4

This research, therefore, investigates marketing in the software industry in order to:

Identify and prioritise the key attributes which customers value/expect in the softwaresupply relationship;

Develop an understanding of the nature and importance of key attributes; Propose a customer relationship attributes model that can be used by software SMEs

to inform the actions that they need to take in order to enhance their relationships

with customers and to improve customer-perceived value;

Explore the use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) to identify the benefits soughtand the tradeoffs made by customers embarking on B2B relationships with their

software providers.

The paper begins with a review of the Relationship Marketing literature in the B2B

sector followed by a consideration of SME software marketing. Then, the two stage

research methodology is described. This describes the use of semi-structured interviews

with the customers of two case study firms, to identify key attributes, and the use of

these attributes in an online survey using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, to identify the

relative significance of the attributes. The key findings are then presented and discussed;

five product attributes and seven service attributes are identified. The paper concludes

with the presentation of the customer relationship attributes model suitable for use in

software technology SMEs. Finally, research limitations, together with managerial

implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

2. Literature review

The literature review will firstly consider Relationship Marketing and management in a

B2B context followed by a summary of the specific research relating to Relationship

Marketing in the software industry. The importance of networking and alliances will also

be discussed focussing on software SMEs along with a brief examination into the software

industry and the importance of software quality.


5/34

5

Relationship marketing in a B B contextRelationship Marketing is a concept which focuses on developing long term relationships

with customers and other stakeholders. Gronroos (1994, p.9) contends that RM is to

establish, maintain, and enhance relationships with customers and other partners, at a

profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is achieved by a mutual

exchange and fulfilment of promises. The principles upon which RM is based include

trust, commitment and customer satisfaction (Gil-Saura et al., 2009). Other key factors

linked with collaborative relationship success in the B2B context include cooperation,

social bonding and communication (Pinnington and Scanlon, 2009).

The concept of RM has been drawn from a number of other interrelated concepts and

paradigms. In particular, Services Marketing and IMP research and the literature

relating to B2B relationships, partnerships, alliances and networks. Hence this paper

acknowledges the work of researchers including Brennan et al., (2007) in contextualizing

this research.

Services in business markets are far less researched than those in consumer market

places and in such research there is focus on the buying process rather than the post-

purchase outcome (Tyler et al., 2007). Hakansson and the Industrial Marketing and

Purchasing (IMP) group (1982) made significant contributions to Services Marketing

research from a business perspective. They viewed services in the business market

context as service relationships and interactions with a systems view which encapsulated

inter-dependent companies and which was based on the buying and selling processes over

time. Using this approach they explored the interactions, relationships and network

theories in business (Axelsson and Easton, 1992; Hakansson and Snehota, 1995). The

increasing interest in the context of Industrial Services Marketing has led to increasing

research of customer satisfaction within business services (Homburg and Rudolf, 2001).


6/34

6

The notion of value creation in business markets is a well-researched concept, and much

of the literature examines relational value-based drivers and relationship quality (Ulaga

and Eggert, 2006). However they are mainly examined from the suppliers perspective

(Walter et al., 2001). One notable exception includes a study by Lapierre (2000) who

identified 13 value drivers from the customer perspective including product quality,

product customization and flexibility. This study was conducted in the wider ICT

industry, providing a foundation for this investigation.

In the B2B context, the complexity of products and the perceived risk of purchase mean

that effective long-lasting relationships are paramount for creating mutual value and

thus enhance the performance of firms (Caceres and Paparoidamis, 2007). However,

there is limited literature into the management of these relationships (Pinnington and

Scanlon, 2009), particularly the customers perspective and expectations of these

relationships. The RM literature generally focuses on potential benefits for suppliers who

adopt RM approaches.

Effective RM strategy benefits the supplier in terms of increased cooperation, a better

understanding of customer requirements and a dialogue with customers leading to the

development of co-created and customized products and services (Ruokonen et al., 2008).

Financial benefits include reduced costs due to higher retention of customers, and

increased profits as a result of customers loyalty and reduced price -sensitivity (Gronroos,

1994; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Proposed benefits for customers include reduced

anxiety and comfort in knowing their supplier, along with social benefits as a result of

familiarity with employees, individualized and additional services and special treatment

(Gronroos, 1994; 2007; Gummesson, 2002). Aspects of RM theory advocate developing

long-term and commercially viable relationships with customers by listening to customer

requirements and satisfying customer needs with the aim of retaining high value

customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Much of the RM research activity to date has


7/34

7

concentrated on theory building. However, a recent study into RM research identified the

need for more applied research within specific industries (Das, 2009).

Numerous studies have confirmed that the presence of trust and commitment have a

positive impact on relationships (Barry et al., 2008; Ivens, 2005; Melewar et al., 2001;

Takala and Uusitalo, 1996). According to Morgan and Hunt (1994 p.23),trust exists when

one party has confidence in an exchange partners reliability and integrity. Relationship

commitment is defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship

(Moorman et al., 1992 p.316). Both trust and commitment are founded upon regular

communication within a relationship. In this case SMEs offer some advantage over their

larger counterparts when developing business relationships as communications tend to

be more frequent and often face-to-face (Chaston, 1997).

Relationship m arketing in software SM EsLittle attention has been directed towards the marketing of hi-tech or software SMEs

(Alajoutsijarvi et al., 2000; Helander and Ulkinemi, 2006; Ojasalo et al., 2008). However,

the few investigations conducted point towards the benefits of developing relationships,

networking and alliances in this sector. Helander and Ulkuniemi (2006) and Ruokonen

(2008) consider the marketing of software as requiring a relational competency, viewing

businesses which develop tailored software to be inherently relationship and service-

oriented, and for that reason a deep understanding of both the customers business and

the technology is key. In the software sector relationships with existing customers are

necessary for not only generating future revenue but providing further business

opportunities (Ruokolainen and Makela, 2007). Whilst word-of-mouth is prevalent in the

sector (Jones and Rowley, 2009), lasting relationships with current customers facilitate a

clearer understanding of customer requirements and learning how end-users use the

software (Ahmed and Capretz, 2007).


8/34

8

Developing relationships with other stakeholders as well as customers can help facilitate

research capacity in software SMEs marketing and business (Jones and Rowley, 2009;

Westerlund and Svahn, 2008). Moreover, a network approach to marketing in technology

companies implies that relationships are built between buyers and sellers, and thus

companies can learn more about the needs of their customers (Borg, 2009). Boussara and

Deakins (1999) found that social networks of entrepreneurs and strategic alliances are

wholly appropriate to this business context. Alliances provide technology firms with the

opportunity to share resources and capabilities. Entrepreneurial owner-managers use

networks to build business, marketing and innovation capacity (Stokes, 2000).

The nature of software and the software industryThe rapidly evolving nature of the software industry and fast obsolescence of products

makes the software industry an extremely competitive market (Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva,

2005; Ruokolainen and Makela, 2007). The importance of relationships to satisfying and

retaining customers is therefore combined with the importance of delivering quality

software, which emanates from internal organisational processes and employee

competencies. The software design project is a key element of the marketing process as

achieving the desired functionality of the product is a precursor to its perceived quality

and software project success (Agarwal and Rathod, 2006). However, definition of software

quality lacks clarity; software developers, managers and customers often have opposing

views as to what constitutes software quality. Wilson and Hall (1998) assert that

customer service approaches to quality are more likely to represent quality, especially by

customers or users in non-technical roles. Although software quality implies product

quality and is achieved through a combination of product and process quality, other softer

aspects of quality include employee competence and customer focus which can enhance

the overall quality of the software service and supports the development of relationships

with customers (Hall et al., 2007; Isaac et al., 2006). A display of professionalism is also

an aspect of service quality as it relates to the manner of employees, service processes as


9/34

9

well as service tangibles (Gronroos, 2007). Software industry research emphasises the

importance of the human elements of software delivery as well as technical expertise

(Isaac et al., 2006). However more research is needed to understand what specifically

constitutes software quality.

In light of the aforementioned gaps in software marketing research, relationship

marketing in SMEs and the customers perspective of relationships in an industrial

context, this research seeks to investigate the key attributes of successful relationships in

the software industry, but from the customers point of view. This research should

therefore aid software SMEs in the development and management of relationships with

their customers and improve their overall marketing.

3. Methodology

IntroductionA mixed methods approach was deployed. An initial qualitative stage supported the

development of and understanding of the software industry, in particular, the roles,

activities, and customer relationships of SMEs. This involved both an ethnographic study

of two case study organisations and interviews with the customers of those organisations.

In order to provide context brief profiles of these organizations are offered below, but the

full ethnographic analysis is presented elsewhere (Parry et al., In Progress). For the

purpose of this paper, the focus in the qualitative phase is on the interviews with the

customers of these organisations. These interviews were used to both surface key

attributes of customer perspectives on their relationship with the two case study software

suppliers, and to offer elucidation of the essence of these key attributes. The second stage

of the study used the key attributes identified in the first stage to inform the design of an

online questionnaire that used a conjoint analysis tool to provoke respondents to make

choices between attributes. The analysis from this process lead to the development of the


10/34

10

Customer Relationship Attributes Model (CRAM), with rankings of the relative priorities

accorded to the different attributes.

The following sections provide more details of the research methods adopted.

Profiles of case study companiesCompany A is micro software SME based in North Wales. The company started as a

bespoke software solutions company, providing customized database solutions, but now

has off-the-shelf products. There is a sole owner-manager and eight full time employees.

The company has been operating for 8 years and has a customer base of 20. Core

competencies include language support, bilingual software solutions and web-based

information databases. Bilingualism is reflected in policies of many Welsh organisations

and those companies that are in the Welsh market as they cater for both languages.

There is also a particular demand for the advancement of the Welsh Language in the

field of IT (Welsh Language Board, 2006). The marketing activities of Company A

consists of networking at local and national business exhibitions, developing

relationships with prospective and current buyers, a Gold partnership with Microsoft and

collaborations with other Welsh software organisations. All contacts are managed

through a CRM system however the system is not used to its full potential due to the

SMEs lack of time and staff resources. This firm has won two awards based on their

innovative capabilities and bilingual capability, helping them improve their perceived

credibility in the marketplace.

Company B is a small business which developed software and is also located in North

Wales. The company was founded in 2000 by two owner-managers and quickly grew to 14

full and part time staff. The SME offered one product and had two clients during its short

lifespan. Company Bs marketing activities were limited. The product was developed

without market research or customer consultation. With regards to other marketing

activities, there was no formal process of attracting and prospecting new customers. The


11/34

11

background and focus of the main decision makers in the firm was engineering and

finance. This further hampered the marketing function of Company B.

nterviews with case study firms customersTo investigate the important attributes of software suppliers as judged by their

customers, in-depth interviews were conducted with customers of both of the case study

firms (see table 1 for respondent data). All customers from both companies were

approached to take part in an interview and were contacted via e-mail followed by a

formal letter. The interview method was chosen to investigate the dyadic relationships

between both firms and their customers, and to obtain a holistic view of each SME.

Fifteen customers agreed to be interviewed. Two customers had more than one contact

thus two respondents were interviewed in each of these cases. This resulted in a total of

17 interviews. Interviews remained flexible so as to encourage respondents to discuss the

nature of their relationships with their particular software firm, their perceptions of the

relationships and their expectations of software suppliers. The investigation of

experiences and expectations of customers in a service context is supported by Gilmore

and Carson (1996), as it can provide information about the reasons of opinions, attitudes

and perceptions of customers. An initial list of themes to cover in interviews was

compiled based on the RM literature and to provide some structure, however as an open

approach to interviews was taken, a list of topics generally discussed in most interviews

is included (see Appendix 1).

Table 1 Interview Respondent Data


12/34

12

Customer Industry

No of

Employees

Number of Interviews

and Role of Respondent

Private/Public

Sector

1

Financial

Services 20 1-Managing Director Private

2 Chemical 560 1

IT Manager Private

3 Information

Services

10 2 -Managing Director and

Head of Systems

(separately)

Not For Profit

4 Government 9000 1 - IT Manager Public

5 Government 20000 1-ProgrammeManager Public

6 Public Services 50 1IT Manager Public

7 Agriculture 1 1Managing Director Private

8 Sustainable

Development

5 1 -Managing Director and

Website Officer (combined)

Public

9 Utilities 15 1 -Finance Assistant Private

10 Manufacturing 350 1IT Manager Private

11 Government 3000 1IT Manager Public

12

Emergency

Services 1700 1 -ICT Software Engineer Public

13 Government/

Economic

Development

1000 2 -IT Manager and Project

Manager (separately)

Public

14 Government 50

1Research and Grants

Manager Public

15 Medical 2000 1-Project Manager Private

Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and content analysis was used to

analyse the data (Hill and Wright, 2001; Miles and Huberman, 1994). A list of attributes

that customers deemed important when selecting a software supplier was also drawn

from the data in order to investigate the ongoing relationship and why customers are

likely to continue in the relationship with their software firms. This was used to inform

the ACA.

Online survey using conjoint analysis


13/34

13

Conjoint Analysis can be described as a favourite methodology for the investigation of

tradeoffs made by customers when making choices between products, brands and

suppliers (Green et al., 2001). These tradeoffs arise when competing products differ with

regards to individual attribute levels and the desired levels of attributes allocated to

different products create conflicts in the process of choosing. Mohr et al.,(2005) provide a

rationale for the application of conjoint analysis in the high tech industry, and support is

provided for using conjoint analysis in new product development (Kang et al., 2007).

Conjoint analysis has also been applied in the research of high tech SMEs in exploring

strategy development and product offerings (Schmidt and Gary, 2002).

Twelve attributes were identified for business software suppliers via the interviews and

between two and four levels for each attribute were defined (see Appendix 2 for a list of

all attributes and levels). Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) developed by Richard

Johnson (1987) of Sawtooth Software was applied. In the first, self-explication stage of

the ACA procedure respondents expressed their preferences and ascribed importance

ratings to individual attributes. Next they were asked to indicate preferred profiles and

perform graded paired comparisons.

The ACA survey was computer assisted, with direct data input system which can handle

a large number of attributes (up to 30). Another advantage of ACA is its ability to adapt

to each respondents answers as he or she goes along, and capture the areas of greatest

interest. The composition of questions asked varies per respondent and assumes dynamic

approach with active, explicit competitors as opposed to static assessment of pre-defined

product profiles.

Other than the ACA procedure the survey involved gathering information about the role

of respondent, size of organisation, industry and software purchasing behaviour. The

survey was made available online and a link was e-mailed to decision makers responsible

for software purchase in various organisations located in Wales. A reminder e-mail was

subsequently sent resulting in two hundred and fifty six (256) surveys being completed.


14/34

14

Analysis was conducted by estimating the part worth utilities at the total sample level

(aggregated data) with Ordinary Least Squares. In order to include individual differences

the Hierarchical Bayes (HB) (Anlenby et al., 1995) model was used to estimate the

parameters which were used to underpin the development of CRAM.

4. Findings and discussion.

The findings of both the qualitative research and the ACA survey are presented in a

conceptual model displaying customer expectations of software suppliers, the Customer

Relationship Attributes Model (CRAM), shown in Figure 1. The numbers ascribed to

arrows represent the ACA average importances of the attributes and represent the

weighting of each attribute in the mind of a customer. As the variables come from

different realms, the model includes three types of variables: manifest, latent and a

combination of both. Manifest variables are ones that have been measured quantitatively

via ACA, and the latent variables represent the constructs derived from case study

research and in-depth interviews. The latent variables are used to explain the manifest

variables: in this model they demonstrate the specific challenges and issues pertaining to

software SMEs in Wales. The key attributes in the model are discussed below and

illustrated with statements from respondent interviews.

The ACA analysis provides insights into the relative importance of the key attributes

from the customers perspective. Software Quality is the most important attribute

perceived by customers. The second most important attribute is Professionalism,

followed by Understanding ofthe Customer and Functionality. Most significantly, it is

apparent that service-related attributes such as Professionalism, Trust, Service and

Employee Expertise are equally important as the product-related attributes, such as

Software Quality and Functionality. Interestingly, the factor of Price is not perceived

as a primary driver of software purchase. Scores relating to Relationship and

Communication do not suggest that these are important factors, but as will be

elaborated further below, it is reasonable to assert that other attributes with relatively


15/34

15

high ranking including Understanding of the Customer and Trust cannot be achieved

and leveraged without an underlying relationship with the software supplier (Helander

and Ulkuniemi, 2006). The least important attributes are Location and Bilingual

Capability, which seem to be desirable rather than essential attributes to prospective

customers.

Figure 1: Customer Relationship Attributes Model CRAM)


16/34

16

Software qualitySoftware Quality was ranked as the most important attribute; findings suggest that

software firms and customers have differing views as to what constitutes software quality.

Some firms focus on software development processes and the use of formal, rigorous

approaches to software development, whilst others focus on the role of customer service

or user participation, concurring with the need for a shared understanding of quality

(Wilson and Hall, 1998 p.67). Respondent feedback indicates that business customers had

different expectations of quality software products such as software scalability; easy

integration with other products; ease of use; and, overall software design. Scalability,

integration and testing are tangible facets of software quality, but the ranking of other

attributes suggests that physical product quality is not all that customers expect. The

service and intangible aspects of quality such as Professionalism, Relationshipwith the

supplier and Employee expertise contribute to the decision making criteria to a large

extent, indicating that software quality is a combination of service and product quality:

InternalCommunication

Integrated

Marketing

Communication

Process

Trust

Price

Functionality

Bilingual

Capability

Location

Software

Quality

Customer

Attributes (of

SME software

suppliers)

Understanding

of the

Customer

EmployeeExpertise

Relationship

Communication

Professionalism

Service

Delivery

Alliances/

Certifications

User-

friendliness

Fitness for

Purpose

Flexibility

12.80

4.01

Product-Related

Attributes

Service-Related

Attributes

4.63

10.33

6.82

5.29

11.40

8.79

6.10

8.80

9.53

11.50

* Numbers denote weights from ACA/Strengths ascribed

to individual attributes

ManifestVariables

LatentVariables

Manifestand Latent

Variables


17/34

17

The opportunity to build a relationship with them. This is important because ifyou have a good relationship with the company, you are a lot more likely to achieveyour objectives because you can talk to them easily, they will understand you, youcan build up the rapport, they will know where youre coming from and you canboth move forward together(Customer 3, Company A).

This corresponds with some of the literature exploring software quality concepts and

builds on the idea that the human element is necessary to achieve quality software (Hall

et al., 2007; Isaac et al., 2006).

ProfessionalismAccording to the ACA findings, Professionalism is the second most important attribute.

Professionalism includes being reliable and having formalised processes (such as working

to project management guidelines and following established software development

processes). Company A were working towards improving their project management

procedures but some customers were still reluctant to enter into large contracts without a

larger partner to diffuse the risk:

Their smallness does show through their written document skills, theirapproaches to project management (Customer 13, Company A).

If we entered into a big software development project, we would want to formalisethe arrangements and we would want a formal structure (Customer 4, Company

A).

Company As partnership strategy helped them to win contracts and illustrated their

professionalism to prospective customers. Therefore, process, delivery, and alliances are

included as latent variables in the model; they are linked to Professionalismas well as to

Service, as service quality embraces the employee behaviour, and service processes, as

well as service tangibles (Gronroos, 2007).

Understanding of the customerUnderstanding of the Customer was ranked as the third most important attribute for

customers when using a software supplier:


18/34

18

They understand what we are trying to achieve, they understand the wa y that wework and they bend over backwards to accommodate our wishes (Customer 3,Company A).

These findings demonstrated that in order to develop understanding between parties, a

dialogue and a relationship is necessary, especially when a customized software solution

is under development, a view already supported by Helander and Ulkuniemi (2006). This

also confirms the views of RM researchers who consider investment in long-term

relationships as having a win-win outcome for both parties (Gronroos, 1994).

Understanding of the customer is arguably even more important in the context of

innovation (Hauser et al., 2006) as an innovative solution based on customer needs is

much more likely to succeed in the marketplace. More specifically, software firms need to

develop an understanding of the end-user and use appropriate terminology which should

be understood by all parties to encourage customer participation in the dialogue, a

finding which aligns strongly with the work of Isaac et al., (2006) and Saiedian and Dale

(2000).

FunctionalityFunctionality was ranked as the fourth most important attribute. This is a product-

related attribute as it refers to the actual software product itself: whether it meets the

customer requirements and detailed specifications in terms of functionality and whether

it solves the business problem for which it is developed. In terms of this study, the

majority of in-depth interviewees and online survey respondents were IT managers who

tended to have a clear idea about what type of software functionality they needed,

stressing the requirement for SMEs to clarify what functionality their software offers and

how it can solve the customers business problem. Achieving the desired functionality of

the product has previously been identified as a vital criterion in defining software project

success (Agarwal and Rathod, 2006) and is a basic requirement in delivering software:

We have to know that if we give a spec to a software company, that they are ableto perform, that we will get what we asked for and within the timeframe wevespecified(Customer 2, Company A).


19/34

19

This also emphasizes the necessity to deliver the desired functionality within a specified

timeframe.

Employee exp ertiseEmployee Expertiseincorporates the technical skills and competencies of the employees,

as well as their manner and approachability. Customer respondents considered that

having confidence in the firms software employees and when using the actual product

were both important. The findings indicated the significance of the relationship between

software developers and the customer, which helped in gaining a detailed understanding

of the customers needs:

You also have to be able to work with the company day-to-day, so I guess the softerside that cant be documented so the relationship, basically. Can you work with thepeople, the company, can they fit into the culture of your organisation?...You needto be able to get along as individuals (Customer 8, Company A).

This finding confirms the literature which highlights the importance of soft, human

elements as well as technical expertise (Isaac et al., 2006). In the case study research,

Company Bs employees did not communicate with their customers which resulted in a

misunderstanding of customer requirements and a tendency for managers to relay

incorrect information back to the software development team. In contrast, Company A

liaised regularly with customers in order to develop a bespoke solution which fitted their

requirements.

ServiceServicewas ranked sixth out of the twelve attributes, enhancing the argument that the

quality of service provided by software companies is equally as essential as product

quality. The Serviceattribute includes after-sales service, which is of great importance

to many software buyers in view of the fact that they may be faced with post-purchase

technical or user problems:


20/34

20

Software companies now have to look at the whole life cycle from the businessprocess re-engineering, through to the delivery, from specification to delivery andultimately the support and then the ongoing optimisation so they dont just walkaway when theyve delivered (Customer 11, Company A).

The importance of this attribute concurs with much of the Services Marketing literature,

particularly the service experience aspect, which does not end once the product is

delivered (Pine and Gilmore, 1999 cited in Gronroos, 2007). Moreover, this emphasises

the importance of delivering a solution to the customer consisting of customer

requirements definition, customization and postdeployment support, concurring with the

work of Tuli et al., (2007). However, as with Software Quality, the Serviceattribute can

be perceived differently by various customers. Service can include consultation, after-

sales service, training and a helpdesk. In this study, professional processes and timely

delivery of the software were also found to be important latent variables of the service

attribute, and are thus included in the model.

TrustTrust was ranked seventh out of the 12 attributes. This confirms the literature

proposing that trust is a characteristic of partnership success (Barry et al., 2008; Ivens,

2005; Melewar et al., 2001). It is interesting that trust was rated higher than the

Relationshipattribute, as a relationship must arguably be established before trust can

develop. However, prospective customers may be inclined to trust a supplier based on

recommendations from contacts or their established reputation and credibility in the

marketplace. In this case, there is an element of trust before the relationship has begun.

Openness, honesty and communication arose in the in-depth interviews as important

constructs of Trust. Moreover, the in-depth interviews inferred that Company As realism

in their capability increased trust as well as the SMEs integrity:

theyre very clear about what they can and cant do for us (Customer 9 , CompanyA).

Price


21/34

21

In the qualitative findings, the price of software for customers was identified as a critical

factor in the software decision-making process, as business customers are forced to work

within tight budgetary constraints. Interestingly, in the ACA findings, Pricewas not a

dominant attribute. Therefore, although cited frequently as an important attribute in the

in-depth interviews, when traded-off in ACA against other factors such as Serviceand

Trust, respondents preferred the latter. The difficulties identified in SMEs were setting

a price centred around competition and competitive tendering. Furthermore, a software

SME without an established reputation and a narrow customer base should secure

business to attract and retain customers and thus aim to price software as low as possible

to attract customers, but not too low that the perception of the softwares quali ty would

be affected. From the customers perspective, the price of software has to be competitive,

and although total software costs can sometimes not be set in advance, particularly when

developing a bespoke solution, the communication of costs to the customer throughout the

software project is vital:

People need to be happy with the costs and how the company communicates thecoststhis communication is vital (Customer 2, Company A).

Therefore once a software project is underway, the communication and transparency of

costs among supplier and customer is vital in furthering the relationship. Interestingly,

the assumption that as relationships develop and mature, customers become less price

sensitive (Gronroos, 1994; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990) is not strongly supported by these

findings.

RelationshipIt is interesting to note that customers viewed relationships as important in the case

study interviews but when respondents were faced with other options, other more

definitive factors became apparent. These factors included Trust and Understanding of

customer requirement. Therefore these elements have been identified as constituents of

relationship management and marketing in the software industry context. This is


22/34

22

confirmed by the views of Barry et al(2008), Ivens (2005); Melewar et al(2001) and Mohr

and Spekman (1996). Therefore, it can be argued that although potential customers do

not explicitly demand a relationship as a main factor in their decision making process, it

is certainly an important attribute which is linked to attributes that customers do rate as

being very important, such as understanding, communication and professionalism

(Brennan et al., 2007).

CommunicationCommunicationwas a recurring theme throughout the study. Although communication

was not ranked highly in contrast to the other attributes, the case research and

qualitative findings indicated that implicit internal communication and external

communication play key roles in furthering relationships within a software SME, as well

as with its customers and other stakeholders. The importance of internal communication

was highlighted in Company B, as a lack of information sharing, teamwork and weak

leadership led to a de-motivated workforce. The lack of communication among both

owner-managers resulted in poor external communications with customers and their

conflicting ideas about the software product meant that no finished product was taken

into the market. In contrast, in Company A employees were encouraged to share

knowledge and ideas in order to collectively develop a successful software solution.

Although Communicationis not rated as highly as other attributes, it can be contended

that communication, like relationships, is intimately associated with other attributes

that customers do value highly. These include understanding of customer needs and trust,

and are facets of communication also identified by Hall et al., (2007) and Hunt et al.,

(2006).

Bilingual capabilityBilingual Capability is a function of software required by a number of firms in Wales.

The attribute is therefore related to Functionality. Most of the in-depth interviews were


23/34

23

conducted with Company As customers, and many of which cited a bilingual offering as

an important factor in their decision-making process:

Operating in Wales Its important to be able to work with a company whounderstand the means of an audience (bilingualism) (Customer 14 , Company A).

However, the Bilingual Capability attribute was traded off against almost all other

attributes in the ACA survey. This could be explained by the fact that although it is

essential for some organisations in Wales to practice bilingualism, particularly within the

public sector, it is not mandatory for them to procure bilingual systems as yet. At present,

bilingual software is a niche market in Wales, and bilingualism is not expected from all

types of organisations. Company A has successfully entered this market with a unique

offering, and although there is a strong demand from certain customers in Wales, the fact

that it is a niche market justifies Company As diversification into other markets in order

to grow.

LocationThe findings related to Location of the software supplier were similar to those of

Bilingual Capability. Locationwas ranked the least important attribute out of the 12

attributes. The in-depth interviews provided an insight into why certain customers prefer

a local supplier, the main reason being the ease of interaction at short notice, which was

deemed vital in developing a complex bespoke product:

We were definitely after someone local who was within an hour or so distance fromus, just to make the interaction between the customer and the supplier easier(Customer 10, Company A).

Moreover, in some instances there was a need for software developers to work closely

with customers in-house employees, which was made easier if they were in physical

proximity to each other. In conclusion, although Locationis not one of the pre-dominant

factors in customers minds when selecting a software supplier, it is an important

attribute to a few customers.


24/34

24

5. Conclusion and managerial implications

This research makes a contribution to the theory of relationship marketing and

management in B2B contexts by providing an insight into the customer-perceived value

of relationships, in the software sector, and with specific reference to SMEs in this sector.

A new Customer Relationship Attributes Model (CRAM) is developed on the basis of

identified attributes representing customer expectations in the software sector. The

Customer Relationship Attribute Model is a practically useful tool for SME software

suppliers as it offers them important insights into the key customer attributes and their

relative weightings. It can also be used by SMEs to plan in greater detail their approach

to relationship management and marketing with a view to improve B2B relationships

and business performance. In theoretical terms, the model provides explanation and

prediction (Lee and Greenley, 2008 p.876) of the customer decision-making process in a

specific industry on the basis that it prioritizes the attributes which are important to

customers. The ACA method is a unique method in this respect as it forces respondents to

make realistic trade-offs between attributes. This method could therefore be run with

larger groups of customers in the future with the aim of advancing theory even further.

This research also furthers the developing research in software marketing and in

particular the issues for software SMEs in relation to the marketing of software.

Although SME researchers (Carson et al., 1995; Gilmore et al., 2001; Hill, 2001) observe

that SME marketing is generally instinctive, unplanned and intuitive, there is evidence

here to suggest that a more structured approach to marketing may offer greater

opportunities in the long-term. Having guidelines to follow is valuable to SMEs who often

have technical but less managerial competencies (Scozzi et al., 2005).

On the basis of this research, SME managers should note the central significance of,

software quality in customer evaluation of software suppliers; it includes elements such


25/34

25

as ease of use, level of testing and the softwares flexibility . On the other hand, the

weightings placed on other service-related attributes imply that service-quality is also

highly regarded by customers (professionalism of the software supplier, their

understanding of customer requirements and the opportunity to develop a long-term

relationship with the supplier). In essence, the inherent nature of software purchase

means that a human element in delivering the service solution is vital in achieving

customer satisfaction and strongly supports the need for relationship management and

marketing even for the smallest software organisations. This is particularly relevant for

customers in the B2B sector requiring customized solutions.

Recommendations for further research include:

Application and adaptation of the CRAM in SMEs in different industry sectors. Thiswould improve the models predictability, yield insights into the key attributes of

successful relationship management and marketing in these sectors and contribute to

relationship marketing theory by offering the potential for making cross-sector

comparisons.

Testing and application of the CRAM in larger software organisations. Further longitudinal case study based research with organisations that have used the

model to inform their practice. Such research might offer insights into the challenges

associated with responding to customers expectations or relationships and any

impacts on business performance.

The product related attribute Software Quality is clearly identified as important.However, worryingly there is evidence that there may not be a consensus on what

constitutes software quality. Therefore, of specific interest to the software sector,

might be further investigation into this key concept from the perspectives of different

stakeholders.

This work is instrumental in that it produces a set of criteria about what customersexpect from a relationship with their supplier. However, further research into the

notion of attraction in business markets (Hald et al., 2009) would provide a more


26/34

26

holistic perspective of the nature of relationships and how to satisfy business

customers.

Appendix 1: Topics covered in interviews

Background to the relationshiphow the relationship was formed and why thiscompany was selected as a software supplier

Description of the relationship Problems which may have arisen in the relationship -why they occurred, solutions to

problems

Satisfaction with the product, in terms of quality and features Satisfaction with the service offered by the company Communication, dialogue and feedback within the relationship Behaviour of the staff and their approach to customer service, including after-sales

service

Strengths and weaknesses of the company Overall impressions of the companylikelihood of recommendations and consideration

of further purchases


27/34

27

Responsiveness of the company to customer needs Relationships with other software companies-thoughts and comparisons with current

company

Important factors influencing choice when purchasing a software product/service Other important attributes in the decision making process-why they are important Expectations of the software product provided by this company Overall expectations of a software company Any other comments


28/34

28

Attributes Levels

1. Understanding of the Customer The software supplier has a comprehensive understanding of customer requirements

The software supplier has a good understanding of customer requirements

The software supplier has a limited understanding of customer requirements

2. Price Low Priced Software

High Priced Software

3. Relationship Mutual and long-term relationship with the software supplier. Future purchases likely.

Transactional and short-term relationship with the software supplier. One off software purchase.

4. Functionality Software has useful functionalitySoftware functionality is limited

5. Bilingual Capability Software supplier offering bilingual software

Software supplier offering English software only

6. Employee Expertise Software developers have extensive experience in the IT industry and recognised qualifications

Software developers have extensive experience in the IT industry but no recognised qualifications

Software developers have recognised qualifications but no practical experience in the IT industry

Software developers have limited experience in the IT industry and no recognised qualifications

7. Trust The customer has confidence in the supplier's reliability and integrity by means of past experiences

The customer deems the supplier to be reliable and has confidence in the supplier through reccomendations and references only

The customer and supplier have no past experiences and trust is yet to be established

8. Software Quality Well-tested software providing positive user experience

User friendly software but not thoroughly tested

Well-tested software but difficult for users to use

Un-tested software which is difficult to use

9. Professionalism Supplier is reliable and has high standard formal processes in place

Supplier is reliable but has no formal processes in place

Supplier has formal processes in place but can be unreliable

Supplier can be unreliable at times and no formal processes in place

10. Location Local software company

Software company based anywhere in the UK11. Communication Structured communication with the software supplier

Ad hoc communication with the software supplier

12. Service Full end-to-end service offered including training and after-sales support.

After sales support is included but no training provided by the software company

Training is provided with the software, but no after-sales support offered.

Software product delivered only. No training and no after-sales support included in the price.

Appendix 2: A list of attributes and levels used in the ACA survey


29/34

References

Agarwal, N. and Rathod, U. (2006), Defining success for software projects: An

exploratory revelation, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,

pp.358-370.

Ahmed, F. and Capretz, L.F. (2007), Managing the business of software product line: An

empirical investigation of key business factors, Information and Software Technology,

Vol. 49 No.2, pp.149-208.

Alajoutsijarvi, K., Mannermaa, K. and Tikkanen, H. (2000), Customer Relationships and

the small software firm: A framework for understanding challenges faced in marketing ,

Information & Management, Vol.37 No.3, pp.153-159.

Allenby, G.M., Arora, N. and Ginter, J.L. (1995), Incorporating prior knowledgeinto the

analysis of conjoint studies, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.32 No.2, pp.152-162.

Athanasopoulou, P (2009), Relationship quality: a critical literature review and research

agenda, European Journal of Marketing, Vol 43 No 5/6, pp.583-610.

Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (1992), Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality,

Routeledge, London.

Barry, J.M., Dion, P. and Johnson, W. (2008), A cross-cultural examination of

relationship strength in B2B services, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.22 No.2,

pp.114-135.

Borg, E.A. (2009), The marketing of innovations in high-technology companies: a

network approach,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 No.3/4, pp.365-370.

Boussara, M. and Deakins, D. (1999), Market-based learning, entrepreneurship and the

high technology small firm, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &

Research,Vol.5 No.4, pp.204-223.

Brennan, R., Canning, L. and McDowell, R. (2007), Business-to-Business Marketing,

Sage Publications, London.


30/34

30

Caceres, R.C. and Paparoidamis, N.G. (2007), Service quality, relationship satisfaction,

trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol.41 No.7/8, pp.836-867.

Carson, D., Cromie, S., McGowan, P. and Hill, J. (1995), Marketing and

Entrepreneurship in SMEs: An Innovative Approach, FT Prentice Hall, Essex.

Chaston, I. (1997), Small firm performance: assessing the interaction between

entrepreneurial style and organisational structure, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol.31 No.11/12, pp.814-831.

Das, K. (2009), Relationship marketing research (1994-2006) An academic literature

review and classification,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.27 No.3, pp.326-363.

Eggert, A., Ulaga, W. and Schultz, F. (2006), Value creation in the relationship life cycle:

A quasi-longitudinal analysis, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 35 No 1, pp.20-27.

Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (1996), Integrative qualitative methods in a services

context,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol.14 No.6, pp.21-26.

Gilmore, A., Carson, D. and Grant, K. (2001), SME Marketing in practice,Marketing

Intelligence & Planning,Vol.19 No.1, pp.6-11.

Gil-Saura, I., Frasquet-Deltoro, M. and Cervera-Taulet, A. (2009), The value of B2B

relationships,Industrial Management Data & Systems, Vol.109 No.5, pp.593-609.

Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M. and Wind, Y. (2001), Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis:

Reflections and Prospects, Interfaces, Vol.31 No.3, pp.56-73.

Gronroos, C. (1994), From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a

Paradigm Shift in Marketing,Management Decision, Vol.32 No.2, pp.4-20.

Gronroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing (3rd ed), John Wiley & Sons,

West Sussex.

Gummesson, E. (2002), Relationship Marketing in the New Economy, Journal of

Relationship Marketing, Vol.1 No.1, pp.37-57.

Hald, K.S. (2009), Towards an understanding of attraction in buyer -supplier

relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 38 No 8, pp.960-970.


31/34

31

Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships with Business Networks,

Routeledge, London.

Hall, T., Jagielska, D. and Badoo, N. (2007), Motivating developer performance to

improve project outcomes in a high maturity organisation, Software Quality Journal,

Vol.15 No.4, pp.365-381.

Hauser, J., Tellis, G.J. and Griffin, A. (2006), Research on Innovation: A Review and

Agenda for Marketing Science,Marketing Science, Vol.25 No.6, pp.687-717.

Helander, N. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2006), Marketing challenges in the software component

business,International Journal of Technology Marketing, Vol.1 No.4, pp.375-392.

Hill, J. (2001), A multidimensional study of the key determinants of effective SME

marketing activity(Part 1 and 2), International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &

Research, Vol.7 No.5&6, pp.171-235.

Hill, J. and Wright, L.T. (2001), A qualitative research agenda for small-to-medium sized

enterprises, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol.19 No.6, pp.432-443.

Homburg, C. and Rudolf, B. (2001), Customer satisfaction in industrial markets:

dimensions and multiple role issues,Journal of Business Research, Vol.52 No.1, pp.15-

33.

Hunt, S., Arnett, D.B. and Madhavaram, S. (2006), The explanatory foundations of

relationship marketing theory,Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.21 No.2,

pp.72-87.

Isaac, G., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2006), An Instrument for the

measurement of customer perceptions of quality management in the software industry:

An empirical study in India,Software Quality Journal, Vol.14 No.4, pp. 291-308.

Ivens, B.S. (2005), Flexibility in industrial service relationships: The construct,

antecedents and performance outcomes,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.34 No.6,

pp.566-576.

Johnson, R.M. (1987), Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, in Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint

Analysis, and Computer Interviewing 1987 proceedings of the Sawtooth Software

Conference, Sawtooth Software: Ketchum, ID, pp 253-65.


32/34

32

Jones, R. and Rowley, J. (2009), Marketing activities of companies in the educational

software sector, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.12 No.3,

pp.337-354.

Kang, N., Kim, J. and Park, Y. (2007), Integration of marketing domain and R&D

domain in NPD design process,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.107 No.6,

pp.780-801.

Kulmala, H.I. and Uusi-Rauva, E. (2005), Network as a business environment:

experiences from software industry Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, Vol.10 No.3, pp.169-178.

Lapierre, J. (2000), Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts, Journal of

Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol 15 No 2/3, pp.122-140.

Lee, N. and Greenley, G. (2008), The primacy of theory, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol 42 No 9/10, pp.873-878.

Lindgreen, A., Palmer, R., Vanhamme, J. and Wouters, J. (2006), A relationship-

management assessment tool: Questioning, identifying and prioritizing critical aspects of

customer relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 35 No 1, pp.57-71.

Melewar, T.C., Hunt, C. and Bridgewater, S. (2001), Business-to-Business Relationship

Marketing: An Internet and International Perspective, The Marketing Review, Vol.2

No.2, pp.169-185.

Miles, M.A. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed, Sage

Publications, California, USA.

Mohr, J., Sengupta, S. and Slater, S. (2005), Marketing of High-Technology Products and

Innovations, 2nded, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R.E. (1996), Perfecting Partnerships, Marketing

Management, Vol.4 No.4, pp.35-43.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), Relationships between providers

and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations,

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.29 No.3, pp.314-28.


33/34

33

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing,Journal of Marketing, Vol.58 No.3, pp.20-38.

ODwyer, M., Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (2009), Innovative marketing in SMEs,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol.43 No.1/2, pp.46-61.

Ojasalo, J., Natti, S. and Olkkonen, R. (2008), Brand building in software SMEs: an

empirical study,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.17 No.2, pp.92-107.

Pinnington, B.D. and Scanlon, T.J. (2009), Antecedents of collective-value within

business-to-business relationships, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.43 No.1/2,

pp.31-45.

Reicheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. (1990), Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services,

Harvard Business Review, Vol.68 No.5, pp.105-111.

Ruokolainen, J. and Makela, M.M. (2007), Constructing a market domain model for

start-up software technology companies: a case study, Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management, Vol.24 No.3, pp.186-202.

Ruokonen, M. (2008), Market orientation and product strategies in small

internationalising software companies, Journal of High Technology Management

Research,Vol.18 No.2, pp.143-156.

Ruokonen, M., Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K. and Saarenketo, S. (2008), Market

orientation and internationalisation in small software firms, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol.42 No.11/12, pp.1294-1315.

Saiedian, H. and Dale, R. (2000), Requirements engineering: making the connection

between the software developer and customer, Information and Software Technology,

Vol.42 No.6, pp.419-428.

Schmidt, M.J. and Gary, M.S. (2002), Combining system dynamics and conjoint analysis

for strategic decision making with an automotive high-tech SME, System Dynamics

Review, Vol .18 No.3, pp.359-379.


34/34

34

Scozzi, B., Garavelli, C. and Crowston, K. (2005), Methods for modelling and supporting

innovation processes in SMEs, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.8

No.1, pp.120-137.

Stokes, D. (2000), Entrepreneurial Marketing: a conceptualisation from qualitative

research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol.3 No.1, pp.47-54.

Takala, T. and Uusitalo, O. (1996), An alternative view of relationship marketing: a

framework for ethical analysis,European Journal of Marketing, Vol.30 No.2, pp.45-60.

Tuli, K.R., Kohli, A.K. and Bharadwaj, S.G. (2007), Rethinking Customer Solutions:

From Product Bundles to Relational Processes,Journal of Marketing, Vol.71 No.3, pp.1-

17.

Tyler, K., Patton, Mongiello, M. and Meyer, D. (2007), Service business markets: a

further view of a new reality or a blurred landscape?, Journal of Services Marketing,

Vol.21 No.5, pp.295-303.

Ulaga, W. (2001), Customer value in business markets: An agenda for inquiry,

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 30 No 4, pp.315-319.

Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), Relationship value and relationship quality, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol 40 No 3/4, pp.311-327.

Walter, A., Ritter, T. and Gemunden. (2001), Value creation in buyer -seller

relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 30 No 4, pp.365-377.

Welsh Language Board. (2006), Bilingual Software Guidelines and Standards, available

at:http://www.byigwlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/3963.pdf,(accessed 12

August 2008).

Westerlund, M. and Svahn, S. (2008), A relationship value perspective of social capital in

networks of software SMEs, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.37 No.5, pp.492-

501.

Wilson, D.N. and Hall, T. (1998), Perceptions of software quality: a pilot study,Software

Quality Journal, Vol.7 No.1, pp.67-75.
http://www.byigwlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/3963.pdfhttp://www.byigwlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/3963.pdfhttp://www.byigwlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/3963.pdfhttp://www.byigwlb.org.uk/English/publications/Publications/3963.pdf

study on b2b marketing

Documents